About your Search

20121115
20121115
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
or sublike you are being picked on because you are part of the obama administration and republicans have been picking on obama for four years. usually their mantra goes, jobs -- job pastoring regulation. lead industry police itself and we don't want the government involved. now they are saying we want more government involved. and i think they are right. we want appropriate government involvement to stop these things from happening. so you would think that our application would be to get out -- i respect chairman grayson but i have never understood them to be a great legal scholar. seems to me there is ambiguity and if there is an ambiguity it's our job to clear that. you think the ambiguity because the law we drafted him 1977 said one thing and if we want to make sure -- we have to make sure that you have all the ability appropriate to act. the courts have thrown out part of that 1997 law. the courts themselves are divided on whether section 503a continues to have any legal force in the western states and five 3a is not affected as well as texas louisiana and mississippi it is and is the map
specific things have members said about the obama administration's response that has not been adequate enough? >> will come you hear different democrat and from republicans. republicans are particularly critical. they believe the obama administration should have known right away. this is not a spontaneous attack, not part of the protest, for example. they want to understand who knew what when. what does the president know about the attack? what is his national security team now? now they want to know who knew about the securities and the lead up to the attack because there were people in tripoli and libya saying that there wasn't enough security concerns because of the things going on in libya. >> mccain, graham and india yesterday made remarks about u.n. ambassador susan rice. what did they say in what is it mean in context context of the benghazi attacks? >> well, basically what they said is they don't trust her. they said she should have known better that you say five days after the attack but it looks to be a spontaneous response to anti-muslim video. they said she should have know
of the differences between the bush administration and the obama administration is that we believed, and a big many of us continue to believe, that this is a long war not against al qaeda. al qaeda is one manifestation but against a particular ideology. so our national security goals were, one, keep america safe, too, help promote freedom around the world. and those two things are linked because we believe they were linked. free countries are less likely to make were on their neighbors. so i think that to me the grand strategic goal of public diplomacy is the same as the grand strategic goal of foreign policy and national security policy, which is to achieve those two goals. and i think you never ever want to forget that those are the goals that need to be achieved. and public diplomacy's role in that i think does, in fact, revolve around the ideological part. and it is, not to quote myself, i hate to do that, but i can't say it any better. [laughter] >> a great man once said. >> the aim must be to ensure that negative sentiments and day-to-day grievances toward the united states and its allies did
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)